politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Osborne’s Standard has surely got this right – TMay is in offi
Options
Comments
-
I think you can always effectively pull an amendment right at the last moment by not pressing it to a vote. Yesterday was unusual in that Spelman wanted to do that but it was instead pressed to a vote by one of the other co-signatories.Richard_Tyndall said:
At what point can you no longer pull an amendment. Bercow did not allow Spelman to pull her amendment yesterday. I am not clear on how close to the vote that was but it seems like to was a few hours before. Might Wollaston be unable to pull her amendment?IanB2 said:
More critically, the amendment will be pulled because once voted on it isn't normally allowable to table the same proposal again (May and her deal being an exception, clearly)Danny565 said:
In light of this...Pulpstar said:
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1106185993005264897?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1106185993005264897&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/mar/14/brexit-mps-to-vote-on-delaying-departure-from-european-union-politics-live
...I suspect Wollaston will pull the amendment at the last minute, to save it only getting about 30 votes.0 -
betting post:
NotwhatIam (14.10 Cheltenham) was fancied last week quite strongly but the price is drifting out faster than the ERG's commitment to Brexit so maybe something has changed.
DYORDYORDYOR0 -
0
-
Looks like today is Remains opportunity to look stupid..
0 -
Against an ERG bar set in nanometresTGOHF said:Looks like today is Remains opportunity to look stupid..
0 -
One of the ERG should have signed it, so they could stop it being pulled.IanB2 said:
More critically, the amendment will be pulled because once voted on it isn't normally allowable to table the same proposal again (May and her deal being an exception, clearly)Danny565 said:
In light of this...Pulpstar said:
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1106185993005264897?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1106185993005264897&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/mar/14/brexit-mps-to-vote-on-delaying-departure-from-european-union-politics-live
...I suspect Wollaston will pull the amendment at the last minute, to save it only getting about 30 votes.
I don't know if that's allowed, but it would have been very funny.0 -
I think Caroline Flint is a signatory so she could use the Cooper precedent and insist on it being voted on - probably one of the reasons she signed it, to ensure PV gets a vote and gets taken out of the equation. At least until the next time....Richard_Nabavi said:
I think you can always effectively pull an amendment right at the last moment by not pressing it to a vote. Yesterday was unusual in that Spelman wanted to do that but it was instead pressed to a vote by one of the other co-signatories.Richard_Tyndall said:
At what point can you no longer pull an amendment. Bercow did not allow Spelman to pull her amendment yesterday. I am not clear on how close to the vote that was but it seems like to was a few hours before. Might Wollaston be unable to pull her amendment?IanB2 said:
More critically, the amendment will be pulled because once voted on it isn't normally allowable to table the same proposal again (May and her deal being an exception, clearly)Danny565 said:
In light of this...Pulpstar said:
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1106185993005264897?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1106185993005264897&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/mar/14/brexit-mps-to-vote-on-delaying-departure-from-european-union-politics-live
...I suspect Wollaston will pull the amendment at the last minute, to save it only getting about 30 votes.0 -
Like I said, Europhiles are lying cretins. To be fair, though, I think you’re more of a cretin than a liar.Nigel_Foremain said:
I think the term cretin and any other term for people of limited intellect belongs to anyone who believes Muslims should be deported for simply being Muslim. You are talking out of your backside once again. It is said that travel broadens the mind. Clearly being of broad mind does not apply to travel writers for Rupert Murdoch's Times.SeanT said:
What the bleeding fuck are you talking about? Integration is accelerating. What’s more, since Lisbon they don’t need Treaty change to do it. They want an EU army, EU wide migration laws, harmonised taxes, harmonised minimum wages, one EU UNSC seat, they want it all. Moreover, the horrible logic of the eurozone means that they HAVE to go for much closer integration - pooling debt, etc. Because if they don’t the eurozone will fly apart in the next crisis.FF43 said:
ble of change" criticism that comes from largely the same people. I think the second criticism has more validity, incidentally.RobD said:
Same goes for EU integration. An unstoppable force with only one destination.FF43 said:
Brexit will never be over. Not for ten years at least. Maybe if we revoke, but even then doubtful.TGOHF said:
Disagree - the public want Brexit over. The HoC wants to can kick forever rather than take a decision.Foxy said:
Nah, the HoC is accurately reflecting a British public lost, conflicted and confused about the fiasco of Brexit.TGOHF said:
Control is passing to a cabal of unrepresentative MPs and a speaker who are hell bent on ignoring the referendum.Sean_F said:
It seems to me that control is passing to nobody.HYUFD said:Control of the process is now clearly passing to Parliament as last night's votes show and for some sort of CU and SM BINO, Tusk has also signalled the EU would grant a lengthy extension if the UK shifted in that direction today
Good luck to anyone trying to run the country if they succeed.
Perhaps you missed Macron’s speech on all this. Understandable I suppose. He is just the president of France.
https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-european-parliament-election-calls-for-big-eu-changes-in-european-renaissance/
Sure, he won’t get everything he wants at once. But the direction of travel is obvious. Only a lying cretin, or a British Europhile (i.e. the same thing) would pretend otherwise.0 -
Mr Z,
Its more akin to the landlord inviting the customer in with "What would you like?" The customer says "A pint of bitter, please," and the landlord shakes his head. "You can only have lemonade, this is a vegan pub."
"Since when?" you ask.
"Since I became teetotal thirty seconds ago."
0 -
Which does of course mean that someone else could press the amendment today.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think you can always effectively pull an amendment right at the last moment by not pressing it to a vote. Yesterday was unusual in that Spelman wanted to do that but it was instead pressed to a vote by one of the other co-signatories.Richard_Tyndall said:
At what point can you no longer pull an amendment. Bercow did not allow Spelman to pull her amendment yesterday. I am not clear on how close to the vote that was but it seems like to was a few hours before. Might Wollaston be unable to pull her amendment?IanB2 said:
More critically, the amendment will be pulled because once voted on it isn't normally allowable to table the same proposal again (May and her deal being an exception, clearly)Danny565 said:
In light of this...Pulpstar said:
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1106185993005264897?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1106185993005264897&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/mar/14/brexit-mps-to-vote-on-delaying-departure-from-european-union-politics-live
...I suspect Wollaston will pull the amendment at the last minute, to save it only getting about 30 votes.
But I expect yesterday was unusual because of the suspicion that Spelman had somehow been nobbled.0 -
In other news, this is just TERRIBLE for Boeing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-software-in-boeing-737-max-planes-under-scrutinty-after-second-crash/2019/03/13/06716fda-45c7-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html
They are going to get sued for billions. This is worse than dieselgate. Many people have died.0 -
That'd be funny but I doubt Flint is a signatory to Wollaston.kingbongo said:
I think Caroline Flint is a signatory so she could use the Cooper precedent and insist on it being voted on - probably one of the reasons she signed it, to ensure PV gets a vote and gets taken out of the equation. At least until the next time....Richard_Nabavi said:
I think you can always effectively pull an amendment right at the last moment by not pressing it to a vote. Yesterday was unusual in that Spelman wanted to do that but it was instead pressed to a vote by one of the other co-signatories.Richard_Tyndall said:
At what point can you no longer pull an amendment. Bercow did not allow Spelman to pull her amendment yesterday. I am not clear on how close to the vote that was but it seems like to was a few hours before. Might Wollaston be unable to pull her amendment?IanB2 said:
More critically, the amendment will be pulled because once voted on it isn't normally allowable to table the same proposal again (May and her deal being an exception, clearly)Danny565 said:
In light of this...Pulpstar said:
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1106185993005264897?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1106185993005264897&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/mar/14/brexit-mps-to-vote-on-delaying-departure-from-european-union-politics-live
...I suspect Wollaston will pull the amendment at the last minute, to save it only getting about 30 votes.0 -
I think that is simply untrue. And at two separate levels. As someone has already pointed out you have Macron, Merkel and others claiming that the only way to deal with populism is to have further integration - and quickly.FF43 said:
The EU integration bandwagon has more or less stopped.There is almost zero willingness for it amongst member states. This is the other side of the coin from "The EU is incapable of change" criticism that comes from largely the same people. I think the second criticism has more validity, incidentally.RobD said:
Same goes for EU integration. An unstoppable force with only one destination.FF43 said:
Brexit will never be over. Not for ten years at least. Maybe if we revoke, but even then doubtful.TGOHF said:
Disagree - the public want Brexit over. The HoC wants to can kick forever rather than take a decision.Foxy said:
Nah, the HoC is accurately reflecting a British public lost, conflicted and confused about the fiasco of Brexit.TGOHF said:
Control is passing to a cabal of unrepresentative MPs and a speaker who are hell bent on ignoring the referendum.Sean_F said:
It seems to me that control is passing to nobody.HYUFD said:Control of the process is now clearly passing to Parliament as last night's votes show and for some sort of CU and SM BINO, Tusk has also signalled the EU would grant a lengthy extension if the UK shifted in that direction today
Good luck to anyone trying to run the country if they succeed.
And then at the Commission level you have the proposal that they will use the Passerelle clause to bypass national vetoes and introduce majority voting for all tax issues. Whether or not this would pass, it certainly shows a desire for continuing integration by the EU.0 -
Most of the time, it works just fine. But then, it has moments where it just goes berzerk....Sunil_Prasannan said:
Westminster is the Boeing 737 Max 8 of parliaments?Floater said:
But wait - didn't Labour say they were FOR a second referendum?Slackbladder said:
Whip to Abstain?Scott_P said:
Way to provide strong quality leadership there Corbyn...ffs.
Yet again proving that the house of incapable of voting 'for' something./
How did all parties end up quite this shit at the same time?
After extensive investigation, turns out it was a fault with their Artificial Intelligence.
They were actually thick as bricks.0 -
Boeing made a complete fool of themselves by allowing Trump to make the announcement to ground the plane before they did. The same goes for the Federal Aviation Authority.SeanT said:In other news, this is just TERRIBLE for Boeing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-software-in-boeing-737-max-planes-under-scrutinty-after-second-crash/2019/03/13/06716fda-45c7-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html
They are going to get sued for billions. This is worse than dieselgate. Many people have died.0 -
Cheers Richard. I hadn't understood the circumstances.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think you can always effectively pull an amendment right at the last moment by not pressing it to a vote. Yesterday was unusual in that Spelman wanted to do that but it was instead pressed to a vote by one of the other co-signatories.Richard_Tyndall said:
At what point can you no longer pull an amendment. Bercow did not allow Spelman to pull her amendment yesterday. I am not clear on how close to the vote that was but it seems like to was a few hours before. Might Wollaston be unable to pull her amendment?IanB2 said:
More critically, the amendment will be pulled because once voted on it isn't normally allowable to table the same proposal again (May and her deal being an exception, clearly)Danny565 said:
In light of this...Pulpstar said:
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1106185993005264897?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1106185993005264897&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/mar/14/brexit-mps-to-vote-on-delaying-departure-from-european-union-politics-live
...I suspect Wollaston will pull the amendment at the last minute, to save it only getting about 30 votes.0 -
That's quite correct. A People's Vote will only happen if and when MPs panic enough and while the panic is rising, they haven't yet reached Def Con 1.CarlottaVance said:0 -
If the ERG started to play games like that at such a critical time they would deserve everything that is coming their wayEndillion said:
One of the ERG should have signed it, so they could stop it being pulled.IanB2 said:
More critically, the amendment will be pulled because once voted on it isn't normally allowable to table the same proposal again (May and her deal being an exception, clearly)Danny565 said:
In light of this...Pulpstar said:
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1106185993005264897?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1106185993005264897&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/mar/14/brexit-mps-to-vote-on-delaying-departure-from-european-union-politics-live
...I suspect Wollaston will pull the amendment at the last minute, to save it only getting about 30 votes.
I don't know if that's allowed, but it would have been very funny.0 -
Mr Z,
You then tell him that you own the pub, and if he doesn't do what the electorate want, he might find himself unemployed.0 -
Any extension granted will take the wind out of panic though.AlastairMeeks said:
That's quite correct. A People's Vote will only happen if and when MPs panic enough and while the panic is rising, they haven't yet reached Def Con 1.CarlottaVance said:0 -
Moggtanian and the Three BrexiteersMarqueeMark said:
Coming up: Moggystyle, Tha Moggfather, No Limit Top Mogg, Tha Blue Carpet Treatment, Moggumentary.....williamglenn said:
AKA Snoop Mogg.TOPPING said:
Jacob Rees-Moron?Nigel_Foremain said:
Would that be an oxyoxymoron, or an oxymoronmoron?Endillion said:
*Pauses to wonder whether "best oxymoron" is, itself, an oxymoron*Nigel_Foremain said:
that is one of the best oxymorons I have ever heardCasino_Royale said:
As I feared the TIG are showing themselves up to be rather smug and hectoring extreme centrists.Pulpstar said:Wollaston amendment should show up the split in Labour.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/11054233527332823040 -
How many chefs does he think are making their way home from work every night in London, carrying a bag full of knives? Answer to the nearest thousand.Harris_Tweed said:O/T (except as an illustration of the quality of stock roaming the corridors of power).
A novel approach to tackling knife-crime; stick with the comments for the entertainment..
https://twitter.com/scottmann4NC/status/11061289064809512960 -
Further proof that a peoples vote is about stopping Brexit and not much else.AlastairMeeks said:
That's quite correct. A People's Vote will only happen if and when MPs panic enough and while the panic is rising, they haven't yet reached Def Con 1.CarlottaVance said:
0 -
Every single speech and interview with Bill Cash seems to arrive at the matter of repealing the 1972 Act remarkably quickly, irrespective of the subject of debate or the question being asked.0
-
As long as they are registered fishermen/women, no problem.Sandpit said:
How many chefs does he think are making their way home from work every night in London, carrying a bag full of knives? Answer to the nearest thousand.Harris_Tweed said:O/T (except as an illustration of the quality of stock roaming the corridors of power).
A novel approach to tackling knife-crime; stick with the comments for the entertainment..
https://twitter.com/scottmann4NC/status/1106128906480951296
0 -
The trouble is we don't have any rules for referenda like we do for General Elections (ftpa and a lot of preceding stuff) or Commons votes (Erskine May), which provide how much time has to pass before you can ask the same question again. It would be sensible to have a similar time based rule for referenda and we can argue about how long that should be but I don't see any force in or precedent for the claim that you have to do what the referendum said, irrespective of the passage of time. Its like a rule that you can't hold a General Election until every single pledge in the manifesto has been enacted. And promises made by the parties in the campaign like "no further votes" have no force whatever if they weren't in the legislation nor in the wording of the question.RobD said:
Political transactions are rarely so simple. It was repeated during the campaign that this would be it, no further votes. You don’t have the same conditions when ordering your drink.Ishmael_Z said:
I don't understand that argument. If I say, I'll have a pint of bitter, and I then say, *before the barman has started to pump the bitter, *, no make that Guinness, where is the sense in saying sorry, mate, you have to have the bitter first?RobD said:
More that the decision of the first one should be enacted first.Nigel_Foremain said:
I am not terribly in favour of a second referendum, but why are Brexiteers so terrified of a second ref? I thought you have always said the will-o-the-people is with you?MarqueeMark said:
I wonder historically, how many other amendments with 127 signatories have not been selected by a Speaker?Floater said:Bercow is really shameless isn't he
https://order-order.com/2019/03/14/bercow-refuses-select-cross-party-second-referendum-amendment-signed-127-mps/0 -
no she isn't - she just sarcastically thanked the speaker for selecting it - I was misled by a tweet I saw, should have known better!Pulpstar said:
That'd be funny but I doubt Flint is a signatory to Wollaston.kingbongo said:
I think Caroline Flint is a signatory so she could use the Cooper precedent and insist on it being voted on - probably one of the reasons she signed it, to ensure PV gets a vote and gets taken out of the equation. At least until the next time....Richard_Nabavi said:
I think you can always effectively pull an amendment right at the last moment by not pressing it to a vote. Yesterday was unusual in that Spelman wanted to do that but it was instead pressed to a vote by one of the other co-signatories.Richard_Tyndall said:
At what point can you no longer pull an amendment. Bercow did not allow Spelman to pull her amendment yesterday. I am not clear on how close to the vote that was but it seems like to was a few hours before. Might Wollaston be unable to pull her amendment?IanB2 said:
More critically, the amendment will be pulled because once voted on it isn't normally allowable to table the same proposal again (May and her deal being an exception, clearly)Danny565 said:
In light of this...Pulpstar said:
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1106185993005264897?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1106185993005264897&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/mar/14/brexit-mps-to-vote-on-delaying-departure-from-european-union-politics-live
...I suspect Wollaston will pull the amendment at the last minute, to save it only getting about 30 votes.0 -
-
It is asking the people. I don't personally have much truck with it myself but it is asking the effing people. The same people who voted to Leave in 2016. It's not like they are going to ask the French to vote to overturn the British decision. It is the very same British people, give or take a few additions to the electoral register (and conversely a few now older-ies).TGOHF said:
Further proof that a peoples vote is about stopping Brexit and not much else.AlastairMeeks said:
That's quite correct. A People's Vote will only happen if and when MPs panic enough and while the panic is rising, they haven't yet reached Def Con 1.CarlottaVance said:0 -
Well of course that's the case for People's Vote.TGOHF said:
Further proof that a peoples vote is about stopping Brexit and not much else.AlastairMeeks said:
That's quite correct. A People's Vote will only happen if and when MPs panic enough and while the panic is rising, they haven't yet reached Def Con 1.CarlottaVance said:0 -
Yep, that'll sort it.Scott_P said:0 -
Starmer is impressive as always.0
-
This is infinitely depressing. We have lost. We have no backbone. The Enlightenment is over. Now comes the Darkening.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1106196762690314240?s=210 -
Mr Meeks seems to be a bit more honest than you in his reply.TOPPING said:
It is asking the people. I don't personally have much truck with it myself but it is asking the effing people. The same people who voted to Leave in 2016. It's not like they are going to ask the French to vote to overturn the British decision. It is the very same British people, give or take a few additions to the electoral register (and conversely a few now older-ies).TGOHF said:
Further proof that a peoples vote is about stopping Brexit and not much else.AlastairMeeks said:
That's quite correct. A People's Vote will only happen if and when MPs panic enough and while the panic is rising, they haven't yet reached Def Con 1.CarlottaVance said:0 -
-
The cabinet is perhaps telling Mrs May that her removal could see her deal pass.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:
Yep, that'll sort it.Scott_P said:
0 -
We've had plenty of leaks from cabinet meetings recently. If there's no leaks from this one, we can narrow down the moles to the civil service present.Scott_P said:0 -
Bloody hell.SeanT said:This is infinitely depressing. We have lost. We have no backbone. The Enlightenment is over. Now comes the Darkening.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1106196762690314240?s=210 -
Another reason would be to publicly humiliate 4 members of the cabinet who defied a 3-line whip and sack them in front of their colleagues...Scott_P said:0 -
After a 4 yr extension all men will have changed their names by deed poll to Bob = bored of Brexit. Then quietly abandon the whole exercise but FFS do something to prevent it happening again.Pulpstar said:
Any extension granted will take the wind out of panic though.AlastairMeeks said:
That's quite correct. A People's Vote will only happen if and when MPs panic enough and while the panic is rising, they haven't yet reached Def Con 1.CarlottaVance said:0 -
-
Huh? What bit about my post is dishonest? Or do you actually think they *are* going to ask the French. They wouldn't do that...would they?TGOHF said:
Mr Meeks seems to be a bit more honest than you in his reply.TOPPING said:
It is asking the people. I don't personally have much truck with it myself but it is asking the effing people. The same people who voted to Leave in 2016. It's not like they are going to ask the French to vote to overturn the British decision. It is the very same British people, give or take a few additions to the electoral register (and conversely a few now older-ies).TGOHF said:
Further proof that a peoples vote is about stopping Brexit and not much else.AlastairMeeks said:
That's quite correct. A People's Vote will only happen if and when MPs panic enough and while the panic is rising, they haven't yet reached Def Con 1.CarlottaVance said:0 -
I reckon there might ultimately be a "let's just get this thing over with either way" move from pro-deal Tories, but they can't do it until brexit is clearly not happening any time soon without the PV or something else to break the logjam. Ideally you'd be a month or two into the extension, with the whole thing becalmed.Pulpstar said:
Any extension granted will take the wind out of panic though.AlastairMeeks said:
That's quite correct. A People's Vote will only happen if and when MPs panic enough and while the panic is rising, they haven't yet reached Def Con 1.CarlottaVance said:
The hitch is that it's not clear you can get the 27 to agree the extension unless you first agree to the referendum...0 -
Depends if they change the eligibility, perhaps to ensure the correct vote?TOPPING said:
Huh? What bit about my post is dishonest? Or do you actually think they *are* going to ask the French. They wouldn't do that...would they?TGOHF said:
Mr Meeks seems to be a bit more honest than you in his reply.TOPPING said:
It is asking the people. I don't personally have much truck with it myself but it is asking the effing people. The same people who voted to Leave in 2016. It's not like they are going to ask the French to vote to overturn the British decision. It is the very same British people, give or take a few additions to the electoral register (and conversely a few now older-ies).TGOHF said:
Further proof that a peoples vote is about stopping Brexit and not much else.AlastairMeeks said:
That's quite correct. A People's Vote will only happen if and when MPs panic enough and while the panic is rising, they haven't yet reached Def Con 1.CarlottaVance said:
0 -
The part about "asking the people" - they are only being asked on the chance they say remain.TOPPING said:
Huh? What bit about my post is dishonest? Or do you actually think they *are* going to ask the French. They wouldn't do that...would they?TGOHF said:
Mr Meeks seems to be a bit more honest than you in his reply.TOPPING said:
It is asking the people. I don't personally have much truck with it myself but it is asking the effing people. The same people who voted to Leave in 2016. It's not like they are going to ask the French to vote to overturn the British decision. It is the very same British people, give or take a few additions to the electoral register (and conversely a few now older-ies).TGOHF said:
Further proof that a peoples vote is about stopping Brexit and not much else.AlastairMeeks said:
That's quite correct. A People's Vote will only happen if and when MPs panic enough and while the panic is rising, they haven't yet reached Def Con 1.CarlottaVance said:0 -
-
Perhaps if parliament passed a bill to repeal the 1972 Act and replace it with the 2019 Act he'd be content?IanB2 said:Every single speech and interview with Bill Cash seems to arrive at the matter of repealing the 1972 Act remarkably quickly, irrespective of the subject of debate or the question being asked.
0 -
I think it’s a classic case of “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”TheScreamingEagles said:
They’ve correctly identified that the backstop is uncomfortable and not desirable. They are therefore opposed
They are not sophisticated enough to say that, on the balance of risk, the right oprion is to vote for the deal despite this drawback0 -
Imagine the furore and outrage if another school had caved into pressure from protesters and stopped teaching classes on Islam...SeanT said:This is infinitely depressing. We have lost. We have no backbone. The Enlightenment is over. Now comes the Darkening.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1106196762690314240?s=210 -
I don't actually think you should limit it in that way. The day after we leave the EU I drop all opposition to another vote. If people really want that then it should be allowed rather than having some arbitrary time limit.Ishmael_Z said:
The trouble is we don't have any rules for referenda like we do for General Elections (ftpa and a lot of preceding stuff) or Commons votes (Erskine May), which provide how much time has to pass before you can ask the same question again. It would be sensible to have a similar time based rule for referenda and we can argue about how long that should be but I don't see any force in or precedent for the claim that you have to do what the referendum said, irrespective of the passage of time. Its like a rule that you can't hold a General Election until every single pledge in the manifesto has been enacted. And promises made by the parties in the campaign like "no further votes" have no force whatever if they weren't in the legislation nor in the wording of the question.RobD said:
Political transactions are rarely so simple. It was repeated during the campaign that this would be it, no further votes. You don’t have the same conditions when ordering your drink.Ishmael_Z said:
I don't understand that argument. If I say, I'll have a pint of bitter, and I then say, *before the barman has started to pump the bitter, *, no make that Guinness, where is the sense in saying sorry, mate, you have to have the bitter first?RobD said:
More that the decision of the first one should be enacted first.Nigel_Foremain said:
I am not terribly in favour of a second referendum, but why are Brexiteers so terrified of a second ref? I thought you have always said the will-o-the-people is with you?MarqueeMark said:
I wonder historically, how many other amendments with 127 signatories have not been selected by a Speaker?Floater said:Bercow is really shameless isn't he
https://order-order.com/2019/03/14/bercow-refuses-select-cross-party-second-referendum-amendment-signed-127-mps/
What I object to is having a second vote before the first has been enacted. That is where you destroy democratic legitimacy.0 -
I mostly agree, but from their point of view Bercow is being so one-sided that such tricks are necessary to expose the hypocrisy.IanB2 said:
If the ERG started to play games like that at such a critical time they would deserve everything that is coming their wayEndillion said:
One of the ERG should have signed it, so they could stop it being pulled.IanB2 said:
More critically, the amendment will be pulled because once voted on it isn't normally allowable to table the same proposal again (May and her deal being an exception, clearly)Danny565 said:
In light of this...Pulpstar said:
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1106185993005264897?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1106185993005264897&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/mar/14/brexit-mps-to-vote-on-delaying-departure-from-european-union-politics-live
...I suspect Wollaston will pull the amendment at the last minute, to save it only getting about 30 votes.
I don't know if that's allowed, but it would have been very funny.
Also you could argue that having Ref2 voted down by a colossal margin at this point would be beneficial, if it takes one way forward off the table permanently.0 -
That might stray into the oil rich waters of the southern end of the Firth of Clyde....MarqueeMark said:
You'd probably take a longer, more northern route to avoid Beaufort's Dyke. What's a couple of extra billion out of Spreadsheet Phil's war chest? (And like he has any long-term career plans for that money anyway....)FF43 said:
It will be an exciting crossing as it will tunnel through the biggest pile of WW2 bombsMarqueeMark said:
May stepping down won't be of any interest to the DUP. They need a Bloody Big Bribe. I've been saying it long enough - PROMISE THEM THE BRIDGE-TUNNEL COMBO TO SCOTLAND.TGOHF said:
Where are the men in grey suits that should be stepping in to tell May to step aside.MarqueeMark said:
The stakes certainly got upped yesterday, with a lot of Ministers - including in the Cabinet - putting their careers on the line. Those who rebelled will now see that if May succeeds, they will be out on their ear in a mahoosive reshuffle. And if Brexit fails, they will get deselected for their pains of being on the "winning" side.....TGOHF said:
Ministers are not sustaining a Conservative government as of last night.numbertwelve said:
We are rewriting the rulebook if Conservative MPs will not vote to sustain a Conservative government.Scott_P said:
The queen should step in soon.
Could May agreeing to step down get MV3 through ?
It's not like May is going to be cutting the bloody ribbon. She won't even be around when the first detailed costs are offered up, making her successor blanche at that many noughts......0 -
An utter disgrace.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Imagine the furore and outrage if another school had caved into pressure from protesters and stopped teaching classes on Islam...SeanT said:This is infinitely depressing. We have lost. We have no backbone. The Enlightenment is over. Now comes the Darkening.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1106196762690314240?s=210 -
"Ebit macht frei".
Corbyn's staff moonlighting as speech-writers for VW?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-475668980 -
This is what it’s like when the Muslim population of the country is just 5%. We cower and cringe, and abandon precious freedoms and principles with barely a fight. We already have a de facto blasphemy law - that only protects Islam.Sean_F said:
Imagine what it will be like if and when the Muslim population reaches 10%, or 20%.
Grim.0 -
That's just dumb. They are being asked - there won't be a pre-vote questionnaire to see how they will vote before they are asked to vote.TGOHF said:
The part about "asking the people" - they are only being asked on the chance they say remain.TOPPING said:
Huh? What bit about my post is dishonest? Or do you actually think they *are* going to ask the French. They wouldn't do that...would they?TGOHF said:
Mr Meeks seems to be a bit more honest than you in his reply.TOPPING said:
It is asking the people. I don't personally have much truck with it myself but it is asking the effing people. The same people who voted to Leave in 2016. It's not like they are going to ask the French to vote to overturn the British decision. It is the very same British people, give or take a few additions to the electoral register (and conversely a few now older-ies).TGOHF said:
Further proof that a peoples vote is about stopping Brexit and not much else.AlastairMeeks said:
That's quite correct. A People's Vote will only happen if and when MPs panic enough and while the panic is rising, they haven't yet reached Def Con 1.CarlottaVance said:0 -
I somehow doubt the oil is that shallow.... Not much of a seal if so.sarissa said:
That might stray into the oil rich waters of the southern end of the Firth of Clyde....MarqueeMark said:
You'd probably take a longer, more northern route to avoid Beaufort's Dyke. What's a couple of extra billion out of Spreadsheet Phil's war chest? (And like he has any long-term career plans for that money anyway....)FF43 said:
It will be an exciting crossing as it will tunnel through the biggest pile of WW2 bombsMarqueeMark said:
May stepping down won't be of any interest to the DUP. They need a Bloody Big Bribe. I've been saying it long enough - PROMISE THEM THE BRIDGE-TUNNEL COMBO TO SCOTLAND.TGOHF said:
Where are the men in grey suits that should be stepping in to tell May to step aside.MarqueeMark said:
The stakes certainly got upped yesterday, with a lot of Ministers - including in the Cabinet - putting their careers on the line. Those who rebelled will now see that if May succeeds, they will be out on their ear in a mahoosive reshuffle. And if Brexit fails, they will get deselected for their pains of being on the "winning" side.....TGOHF said:
Ministers are not sustaining a Conservative government as of last night.numbertwelve said:
We are rewriting the rulebook if Conservative MPs will not vote to sustain a Conservative government.Scott_P said:
The queen should step in soon.
Could May agreeing to step down get MV3 through ?
It's not like May is going to be cutting the bloody ribbon. She won't even be around when the first detailed costs are offered up, making her successor blanche at that many noughts......0 -
That’s very good. Some people have *way* too much time on their hands.williamglenn said:
AKA Snoop Mogg.TOPPING said:
Jacob Rees-Moron?Nigel_Foremain said:
Would that be an oxyoxymoron, or an oxymoronmoron?Endillion said:
*Pauses to wonder whether "best oxymoron" is, itself, an oxymoron*Nigel_Foremain said:
that is one of the best oxymorons I have ever heardCasino_Royale said:
As I feared the TIG are showing themselves up to be rather smug and hectoring extreme centrists.Pulpstar said:Wollaston amendment should show up the split in Labour.
ttps://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/11054233527332823040 -
Why don’t they just leave their knives in the kitchen?Sandpit said:
How many chefs does he think are making their way home from work every night in London, carrying a bag full of knives? Answer to the nearest thousand.Harris_Tweed said:O/T (except as an illustration of the quality of stock roaming the corridors of power).
A novel approach to tackling knife-crime; stick with the comments for the entertainment..
https://twitter.com/scottmann4NC/status/11061289064809512960 -
Listening to Cash speak is remarkably depressing. How on earth did we allow our country to be held to ransom by such an idiot.0
-
When you have ERG members such as JRM assuring us that it will all be fine we will have border checks in NI just as we did during the Troubles, you know that "not sophisticated enough" doesn't begin to cover it.Charles said:
I think it’s a classic case of “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”TheScreamingEagles said:
They’ve correctly identified that the backstop is uncomfortable and not desirable. They are therefore opposed
They are not sophisticated enough to say that, on the balance of risk, the right oprion is to vote for the deal despite this drawback0 -
Partition?SeanT said:
This is what it’s like when the Muslim population of the country is just 5%. We cower and cringe, and abandon precious freedoms and principles with barely a fight. We already have a de facto blasphemy law - that only protects Islam.Sean_F said:
Imagine what it will be like if and when the Muslim population reaches 10%, or 20%.
Grim.0 -
There are quite a few people I'd like to see get a free transfer.Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, we have the hilarious sight of rebel Brexiteers - who have spent the last four months repeatedly voting against three-line whips on the most important policy of the government - complaining about colleagues not following a very late and confused three-line whip on a motion which had not been discussed in Cabinet. So if we're going to do deselections, let's start with the serial rebels, eh?MarqueeMark said:
The stakes certainly got upped yesterday, with a lot of Ministers - including in the Cabinet - putting their careers on the line. Those who rebelled will now see that if May succeeds, they will be out on their ear in a mahoosive reshuffle. And if Brexit fails, they will get deselected for their pains of being on the "winning" side.....0 -
It isCyclefree said:
An utter disgrace.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Imagine the furore and outrage if another school had caved into pressure from protesters and stopped teaching classes on Islam...SeanT said:This is infinitely depressing. We have lost. We have no backbone. The Enlightenment is over. Now comes the Darkening.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1106196762690314240?s=210 -
According to the article, all kinds of God Squadders have got involved.SeanT said:
This is what it’s like when the Muslim population of the country is just 5%. We cower and cringe, and abandon precious freedoms and principles with barely a fight. We already have a de facto blasphemy law - that only protects Islam.Sean_F said:
Imagine what it will be like if and when the Muslim population reaches 10%, or 20%.
Grim.
Christians and Jews have also joined the protests, and on one Friday this month campaigners claimed that 600 of the school’s 750 children did not attend classes after being pulled out by their parents.0 -
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-sends-labour-manifesto-to-theresa-may-in-dig-at-leadership-woes-a3585751.html?ampTOPPING said:
The fact that I don't remember this and that it hasn't been used by May, for example at every PMQs since, is indicative of the problem.Charles said:
She did make that appealTOPPING said:
Yes. Her original sin was the hubris with which she established her initial red lines. Even if Lab (as they no doubt would have) had dismissed an early appeal for a big tent approach, that she had made it would give a lot less cover for them voting against her deal now.Stereotomy said:
I think when people say that May always had an impossible job, they forget how high she was riding before she called the GE, and how many options she had before she drew her red lines.Sean_F said:
May has faults, but let's face it, even Cicero or Pericles would fail to get this lot to agree on anything.
I think Corbyn emailed her the Labour manifesto and said he would be delighted to help her implement the attached programme0 -
0
-
It also strays across the most active fault line in the British Isles. You know, the one we built a nuclear power station next to.sarissa said:
That might stray into the oil rich waters of the southern end of the Firth of Clyde....MarqueeMark said:
You'd probably take a longer, more northern route to avoid Beaufort's Dyke. What's a couple of extra billion out of Spreadsheet Phil's war chest? (And like he has any long-term career plans for that money anyway....)FF43 said:
It will be an exciting crossing as it will tunnel through the biggest pile of WW2 bombsMarqueeMark said:
May stepping down won't be of any interest to the DUP. They need a Bloody Big Bribe. I've been saying it long enough - PROMISE THEM THE BRIDGE-TUNNEL COMBO TO SCOTLAND.TGOHF said:
Where are the men in grey suits that should be stepping in to tell May to step aside.MarqueeMark said:
The stakes certainly got upped yesterday, with a lot of Ministers - including in the Cabinet - putting their careers on the line. Those who rebelled will now see that if May succeeds, they will be out on their ear in a mahoosive reshuffle. And if Brexit fails, they will get deselected for their pains of being on the "winning" side.....TGOHF said:
Ministers are not sustaining a Conservative government as of last night.numbertwelve said:
We are rewriting the rulebook if Conservative MPs will not vote to sustain a Conservative government.Scott_P said:
The queen should step in soon.
Could May agreeing to step down get MV3 through ?
It's not like May is going to be cutting the bloody ribbon. She won't even be around when the first detailed costs are offered up, making her successor blanche at that many noughts......0 -
Because they're working somewhere else the next night?_Anazina_ said:
Why don’t they just leave their knives in the kitchen?Sandpit said:
How many chefs does he think are making their way home from work every night in London, carrying a bag full of knives? Answer to the nearest thousand.Harris_Tweed said:O/T (except as an illustration of the quality of stock roaming the corridors of power).
A novel approach to tackling knife-crime; stick with the comments for the entertainment..
https://twitter.com/scottmann4NC/status/11061289064809512960 -
They are smart enough to have identified an elephant trap.Charles said:
I think it’s a classic case of “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”TheScreamingEagles said:
They’ve correctly identified that the backstop is uncomfortable and not desirable. They are therefore opposed
They are not sophisticated enough to say that, on the balance of risk, the right oprion is to vote for the deal despite this drawback
But stupid enough to still walk into it.
I mean, it's not like the Establishment has hidden the serried ranks of its finest troops, deployed to stop Brexit.0 -
Carnage on its way. 100%.SeanT said:
This is what it’s like when the Muslim population of the country is just 5%. We cower and cringe, and abandon precious freedoms and principles with barely a fight. We already have a de facto blasphemy law - that only protects Islam.Sean_F said:
Imagine what it will be like if and when the Muslim population reaches 10%, or 20%.
Grim.
0 -
I have a lot of sympathy for that view but my objection to a second referendum isn't necessarily one of democracy; my view is that it is never undemocratic to ask the people what they think - how can it be? My objection is that it invites an admin and procedural nightmare - it is more a reductio ad absurdam problem. At what point do you decide that you will ask again?Richard_Tyndall said:
I don't actually think you should limit it in that way. The day after we leave the EU I drop all opposition to another vote. If people really want that then it should be allowed rather than having some arbitrary time limit.Ishmael_Z said:
The trouble is we don't have any rules for referenda like we do for General Elections (ftpa and a lot of preceding stuff) or Commons votes (Erskine May), which provide how much time has to pass before you can ask the same question again. It would be sensible to have a similar time based rule for referenda and we can argue about how long that should be but I don't see any force in or precedent for the claim that you have to do what the referendum said, irrespective of the passage of time. Its like a rule that you can't hold a General Election until every single pledge in the manifesto has been enacted. And promises made by the parties in the campaign like "no further votes" have no force whatever if they weren't in the legislation nor in the wording of the question.RobD said:
Political transactions are rarely so simple. It was repeated during the campaign that this would be it, no further votes. You don’t have the same conditions when ordering your drink.Ishmael_Z said:
I don't understand that argument. If I say, I'll have a pint of bitter, and I then say, *before the barman has started to pump the bitter, *, no make that Guinness, where is the sense in saying sorry, mate, you have to have the bitter first?RobD said:
More that the decision of the first one should be enacted first.Nigel_Foremain said:
I am not terribly in favour of a second referendum, but why are Brexiteers so terrified of a second ref? I thought you have always said the will-o-the-people is with you?MarqueeMark said:
I wonder historically, how many other amendments with 127 signatories have not been selected by a Speaker?Floater said:Bercow is really shameless isn't he
https://order-order.com/2019/03/14/bercow-refuses-select-cross-party-second-referendum-amendment-signed-127-mps/
What I object to is having a second vote before the first has been enacted. That is where you destroy democratic legitimacy.
Maybe a FTRA.0 -
Dream onSandyRentool said:
Another reason would be to publicly humiliate 4 members of the cabinet who defied a 3-line whip and sack them in front of their colleagues...Scott_P said:0 -
I would hope that any Conservative MP who voted with the Opposition in a VONC would be kicked out of the party and never allowed back in.Charles said:
I think it’s a classic case of “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”TheScreamingEagles said:
They’ve correctly identified that the backstop is uncomfortable and not desirable. They are therefore opposed
They are not sophisticated enough to say that, on the balance of risk, the right oprion is to vote for the deal despite this drawback0 -
Chefs get very precious about their knives. If its not their kitchen there would be plenty who wouldn't leave their knives there._Anazina_ said:
Why don’t they just leave their knives in the kitchen?Sandpit said:
How many chefs does he think are making their way home from work every night in London, carrying a bag full of knives? Answer to the nearest thousand.Harris_Tweed said:O/T (except as an illustration of the quality of stock roaming the corridors of power).
A novel approach to tackling knife-crime; stick with the comments for the entertainment..
https://twitter.com/scottmann4NC/status/11061289064809512960 -
Sucks teeth and says “I could do it but it’ll cost you”Big_G_NorthWales said:
Mark Stone said several countries led by FranceHYUFD said:
Like who? Provided it is a shift towards BINO or EUref2 then should be no problemBig_G_NorthWales said:
But other EU countries saying noHYUFD said:Control of the process is now clearly passing to Parliament as last night's votes show and for some sort of CU and SM BINO, Tusk has also signalled the EU would grant a lengthy extension if the UK shifted in that direction today
0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.0
-
When does the window open?Sean_F said:
There are quite a few people I'd like to see get a free transfer.Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, we have the hilarious sight of rebel Brexiteers - who have spent the last four months repeatedly voting against three-line whips on the most important policy of the government - complaining about colleagues not following a very late and confused three-line whip on a motion which had not been discussed in Cabinet. So if we're going to do deselections, let's start with the serial rebels, eh?MarqueeMark said:
The stakes certainly got upped yesterday, with a lot of Ministers - including in the Cabinet - putting their careers on the line. Those who rebelled will now see that if May succeeds, they will be out on their ear in a mahoosive reshuffle. And if Brexit fails, they will get deselected for their pains of being on the "winning" side.....
(Defenestration is also an option....)0 -
Do you really think the school would have abandoned these lessons if it was just Christians or Jews complaining? Of course not. And what’s your guess as to the religious complexion of the kids in this school. In Birmingham. Majority Jewish? Welsh evangelicals?Stark_Dawning said:
According to the article, all kinds of God Squadders have got involved.SeanT said:
This is what it’s like when the Muslim population of the country is just 5%. We cower and cringe, and abandon precious freedoms and principles with barely a fight. We already have a de facto blasphemy law - that only protects Islam.Sean_F said:
Imagine what it will be like if and when the Muslim population reaches 10%, or 20%.
Grim.
Christians and Jews have also joined the protests, and on one Friday this month campaigners claimed that 600 of the school’s 750 children did not attend classes after being pulled out by their parents.0 -
I mean can you imagine for a moment what 5-10 GPS tracked devices in EVERY HOME IN THE COUNTRY would say about the state of the nation?Richard_Tyndall said:
Chefs get very precious about their knives. If its not their kitchen there would be plenty who wouldn't leave their knives there._Anazina_ said:
Why don’t they just leave their knives in the kitchen?Sandpit said:
How many chefs does he think are making their way home from work every night in London, carrying a bag full of knives? Answer to the nearest thousand.Harris_Tweed said:O/T (except as an illustration of the quality of stock roaming the corridors of power).
A novel approach to tackling knife-crime; stick with the comments for the entertainment..
https://twitter.com/scottmann4NC/status/11061289064809512960 -
Very good from him, untypically - but that is a long way from formally inviting Labour (and other parties) in to a Brexit Committee OAT.Charles said:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-sends-labour-manifesto-to-theresa-may-in-dig-at-leadership-woes-a3585751.html?ampTOPPING said:
The fact that I don't remember this and that it hasn't been used by May, for example at every PMQs since, is indicative of the problem.Charles said:
She did make that appealTOPPING said:
Yes. Her original sin was the hubris with which she established her initial red lines. Even if Lab (as they no doubt would have) had dismissed an early appeal for a big tent approach, that she had made it would give a lot less cover for them voting against her deal now.Stereotomy said:
I think when people say that May always had an impossible job, they forget how high she was riding before she called the GE, and how many options she had before she drew her red lines.Sean_F said:
May has faults, but let's face it, even Cicero or Pericles would fail to get this lot to agree on anything.
I think Corbyn emailed her the Labour manifesto and said he would be delighted to help her implement the attached programme0 -
SeanT once did a piece arguing atheists were mentally ill, he could update that piece asking if the ERG members are mentally ill.Sean_F said:
I would hope that any Conservative MP who voted with the Opposition in a VONC would be kicked out of the party and never allowed back in.Charles said:
I think it’s a classic case of “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”TheScreamingEagles said:
They’ve correctly identified that the backstop is uncomfortable and not desirable. They are therefore opposed
They are not sophisticated enough to say that, on the balance of risk, the right oprion is to vote for the deal despite this drawback0 -
It beggars belief that he is a descendant of John Bright.IanB2 said:Listening to Cash speak is remarkably depressing. How on earth did we allow our country to be held to ransom by such an idiot.
0 -
Labour not supporting 2nd ref nor are PV
Corbyn actively campaigning for the tiggers
That 31% will look like nosebleed territory in a fortnight
0 -
I presume a tunnel/bridge/tunnel combo could avoid that?Richard_Tyndall said:
It also strays across the most active fault line in the British Isles. You know, the one we built a nuclear power station next to.sarissa said:
That might stray into the oil rich waters of the southern end of the Firth of Clyde....MarqueeMark said:
You'd probably take a longer, more northern route to avoid Beaufort's Dyke. What's a couple of extra billion out of Spreadsheet Phil's war chest? (And like he has any long-term career plans for that money anyway....)FF43 said:
It will be an exciting crossing as it will tunnel through the biggest pile of WW2 bombsMarqueeMark said:
May stepping down won't be of any interest to the DUP. They need a Bloody Big Bribe. I've been saying it long enough - PROMISE THEM THE BRIDGE-TUNNEL COMBO TO SCOTLAND.TGOHF said:
Where are the men in grey suits that should be stepping in to tell May to step aside.MarqueeMark said:
The stakes certainly got upped yesterday, with a lot of Ministers - including in the Cabinet - putting their careers on the line. Those who rebelled will now see that if May succeeds, they will be out on their ear in a mahoosive reshuffle. And if Brexit fails, they will get deselected for their pains of being on the "winning" side.....TGOHF said:
Ministers are not sustaining a Conservative government as of last night.numbertwelve said:
We are rewriting the rulebook if Conservative MPs will not vote to sustain a Conservative government.Scott_P said:
The queen should step in soon.
Could May agreeing to step down get MV3 through ?
It's not like May is going to be cutting the bloody ribbon. She won't even be around when the first detailed costs are offered up, making her successor blanche at that many noughts......0 -
I think the lesson from our recent referendums is that they should be linked to concrete legislative proposals, not vague attempts to determine the will of the people. A second referendum between ratifying the withdrawal agreement and revoking Article 50 would be a one-off question and wouldn't hang over future political decisions or turn legitimate political opposition into treachery.TOPPING said:I have a lot of sympathy for that view but my objection to a second referendum isn't necessarily one of democracy; my view is that it is never undemocratic to ask the people what they think - how can it be? My objection is that it invites an admin and procedural nightmare - it is more a reductio ad absurdam problem. At what point do you decide that you will ask again?
Maybe a FTRA.0 -
There's a subtle point here which people who haven't been in Parliament may not realise. The Speaker could have selected the motion calling for a referendum, or the motion opposing a second referendum (it'd obviously have been a waste of time to call both).By choosing the former, he gives Wollaston the chance not to move it, and thus keep the issue alive. If he'd selected the other motion, they would have insisted on moving it and it would have been defeated. It could then not be reintroduced.kingbongo said:
no she isn't - she just sarcastically thanked the speaker for selecting it - I was misled by a tweet I saw, should have known better!
Whether this was his intention, or he merely felt it made sense to choose the positive one, we'll never know, but People's Vote people may be quietly grateful to him - assuming Wollaston doesn't press it to a vote, and I assume she won't.
The position was different with the amendment where Cooper forced a vote against the wishes of the prime mover. That worked (and always works - it doesn't need the Speaker's approval) because Cooper had co-signed it. Wollaston could have suffered the same fate if a Brexiteer had been fast enough to co-sign it before the debate started, but I don't think they did.
0 -
I think there are bigger things to worry about than whether you were made to look foolish.AndyJS said:
Boeing made a complete fool of themselves by allowing Trump to make the announcement to ground the plane before they did. The same goes for the Federal Aviation Authority.SeanT said:In other news, this is just TERRIBLE for Boeing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-software-in-boeing-737-max-planes-under-scrutinty-after-second-crash/2019/03/13/06716fda-45c7-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html
They are going to get sued for billions. This is worse than dieselgate. Many people have died.0 -
I have long thought that any referendum could only be Deal vs Remain.williamglenn said:
I think the lesson from our recent referendums is that they should be linked to concrete legislative proposals, not vague attempts to determine the will of the people. A second referendum between ratifying the withdrawal agreement and revoking Article 50 would be a one-off question and wouldn't hang over future political decisions or turn legitimate political opposition into treachery.TOPPING said:I have a lot of sympathy for that view but my objection to a second referendum isn't necessarily one of democracy; my view is that it is never undemocratic to ask the people what they think - how can it be? My objection is that it invites an admin and procedural nightmare - it is more a reductio ad absurdam problem. At what point do you decide that you will ask again?
Maybe a FTRA.0 -
If 5% of the population are hit with £60 per day for keeping their kids out of school then the deficit will be eliminated quite quickly.
0 -
A better lesson is no referendums.williamglenn said:
I think the lesson from our recent referendums is that they should be linked to concrete legislative proposals, not vague attempts to determine the will of the people. A second referendum between ratifying the withdrawal agreement and revoking Article 50 would be a one-off question and wouldn't hang over future political decisions or turn legitimate political opposition into treachery.TOPPING said:I have a lot of sympathy for that view but my objection to a second referendum isn't necessarily one of democracy; my view is that it is never undemocratic to ask the people what they think - how can it be? My objection is that it invites an admin and procedural nightmare - it is more a reductio ad absurdam problem. At what point do you decide that you will ask again?
Maybe a FTRA.
0 -
Nope deal vs no deal would be honest and respect the referendum result - you know the peoples vote.TOPPING said:
I have long thought that any referendum could only be Deal vs Remain.williamglenn said:
I think the lesson from our recent referendums is that they should be linked to concrete legislative proposals, not vague attempts to determine the will of the people. A second referendum between ratifying the withdrawal agreement and revoking Article 50 would be a one-off question and wouldn't hang over future political decisions or turn legitimate political opposition into treachery.TOPPING said:I have a lot of sympathy for that view but my objection to a second referendum isn't necessarily one of democracy; my view is that it is never undemocratic to ask the people what they think - how can it be? My objection is that it invites an admin and procedural nightmare - it is more a reductio ad absurdam problem. At what point do you decide that you will ask again?
Maybe a FTRA.
0 -
If bercow had a spine and wasn't in the pocket of PV he'd tell them they had their chance when they try and reintroduce it and pick something elseNickPalmer said:
There's a subtle point here which people who haven't been in Parliament may not realise. The Speaker could have selected the motion calling for a referendum, or the motion opposing a second referendum (it'd obviously have been a waste of time to call both).By choosing the former, he gives Wollaston the chance not to move it, and thus keep the issue alive. If he'd selected the other motion, they would have insisted on moving it and it would have been defeated. It could then not be reintroduced.kingbongo said:
no she isn't - she just sarcastically thanked the speaker for selecting it - I was misled by a tweet I saw, should have known better!
Whether this was his intention, or he merely felt it made sense to choose the positive one, we'll never know, but People's Vote people may be quietly grateful to him - assuming Wollaston doesn't press it to a vote, and i assume she won't.
The position was different with the amendment where Cooper forced a vote against the wishes of the prime mover. That worked (and always works - it doesn't need the Speaker's approval) because Cooper had co-signed it. Wollaston could have suffered the same fate if a Brexiteer had been fast enough to co-sign it before the debate started, but I don't think they did.0
This discussion has been closed.